> On Dec 8, 2020, at 02:12, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:32:36PM -0800, Chang S. Bae wrote: > > The xstate infrastructure is not flexible to support dynamic areas in > > task->fpu. > > task->fpu? It was considered to be concise to represent, but it looks to be unreadable. > Do you mean the fpu member in struct thread_struct ? Yes. Will make sure to use this for clarification at fist. > > Change the fpstate_init() prototype to access task->fpu directly. It > > treats a null pointer as indicating init_fpstate, as this initial data > > does not belong to any task. > > What for? Commit messages should state *why* you're doing a change - not > *what* you're doing. *What* I can more or less see, *why* is harder. An earlier version had wordy explanations, but it looks too much trimmed down. (I suspect this point applicable to PATCH2-4 as well.) > /me goes and looks forward into the patchset... > > Are you going to need it for stuff like > > fpu ? fpu->state_mask : get_init_fpstate_mask() > > ? Yes, I think that’s one of the cases. > If so, why don't you write *why* you're doing those changes here? Will do that. Thanks, Chang
